Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:No, because Caldwell drafting Joekel is what made him no longer a fit and doing that in his contract year created the situation that only enabled us to get pennies on the dollar for him.

 

Rookie mistake by Caldwell by redundant drafting that negated his ability to recoup proper value for our most valuable asset. Monroe was happy here until Caldwell showed him the door when he drafted Joekel.

 

Like I said, rookie mistake. Hopefully Joekel will turn out to be at least as good as Monroe and Caldwell will make some good picks that will balance out what basically amounted to a swap of the number two overall pick for a 4th and a 5th do to the opportunity cost of passing up on a DE and not keeping Monroe.

LOL. Trying to shore up an O line that was a revolving door the previous year is a rookie mistake? 

 

Redundant drafting?  No longer a fit?  I don't recall seeing Joekel lined up on the left side.

 

How do you know Monroe was so happy here?  Did he tell you so personally?  Maybe he wanted to leave anyway for all those reason you mentioned earlier.

Quote:LOL. Trying to shore up an O line that was a revolving door the previous year is a rookie mistake? 

 

Redundant drafting?  No longer a fit?  I don't recall seeing Joekel lined up on the left side.

 

How do you know Monroe was so happy here?  Did he tell you so personally?  Maybe he wanted to leave anyway for all those reason you mentioned earlier.

 

It's useless.  There isn't a single lost argument he'll ever concede.

Quote:LOL. Trying to shore up an O line that was a revolving door the previous year is a rookie mistake? 

 

Redundant drafting?  No longer a fit?  I don't recall seeing Joekel lined up on the left side.

 

How do you know Monroe was so happy here?  Did he tell you so personally?  Maybe he wanted to leave anyway for all those reason you mentioned earlier.

You don't shore up the line by replacing the only good player on it. They traded Monroe so they could put Joekel on the left side.

 

Joekel has played LT pretty much his whole life. A redundant pick that Caldwell tried to sell as drafting a premier RT after people worried about what he would be able to do with Monroe. Turns out they had a right to worry. The best he could do was trade him for picks that usually amount to journeymen.

Quote:It's useless.  There isn't a single lost argument he'll ever concede.

Please. Pretty much the only people that don't believe the ravens made out on this deal are jaguar fans who don't want to concede that their rookie GM could make a mistake.

Quote:Please. Pretty much the only people that don't believe the ravens made out on this deal are jaguar fans who don't want to concede that their rookie GM could make a mistake.

 

When you get the better end of the deal, as we did, then no mistake was made.

 

That's the plain, simple truth for which you cannot refute.

i just dont see how this guy is ranked 3rd on nflns FA.... the dude hasnt been very productive in 3 years... especially not last year.

What is the arguement?  The Ravens were happy with the deal and so are the Jaguars.  Does there have to be a winner in the trade?

 

In the end, I think both teams got what they were looking for. 

Quote:You don't shore up the line by replacing the only good player on it.

the blocking wasn't any worse after the Monroe trade

Quote:It's useless.  There isn't a single lost argument he'll ever concede.

Quote:You don't shore up the line by replacing the only good player on it. They traded Monroe so they could put Joekel on the left side.

 

Joekel has played LT pretty much his whole life. A redundant pick that Caldwell tried to sell as drafting a premier RT after people worried about what he would be able to do with Monroe. Turns out they had a right to worry. The best he could do was trade him for picks that usually amount to journeymen.

Joekel was widely believed to be one of the very best players available in last years draft.  If a guy is that good at LT, it's a reasonable assumption that he can handle the job at RT, the position he played while Monroe was here.  It wouldn't be necessary to trade Monroe to put Joekel on the left side, that's a coaching decision that can be made at any time.  It's sometimes called competition and the best player wins the spot.  

 

Was Monroe happy about new talent possibly pushing him for a spot? - Probably not.

Did he ask to be traded or make it known that he done here? - Likely.

What was his option? - Put on a pair of big boy pants, get out on the field and prove he was the best!  

 

 

PS  I notice you didn't respond to my question "How do you know Monroe was so happy here?".   I'll assume that was mere speculation on your part without any factual basis or inside knowledge.

The only way I could possibly see this deal working in our favor is if Caldwell is able to use those picks to free up Mack from Cleveland. It would basically amount to a swap of Monroe for Mack.

 

In that scenario, all three teams make out. The ravens get the LT they coveted, the browns get something in return for a player that no longer wants to be there, and the jags get a the best C in franchise history.

Quote:The only way I could possibly see this deal working in our favor is if Caldwell is able to use those picks to free up Mack from Cleveland. It would basically amount to a swap of Monroe for Mack.

 

In that scenario, all three teams make out. The ravens get the LT they coveted, the browns get something in return for a player that no longer wants to be there, and the jags get a the best C in franchise history.

You're pedaling backwards.  A bad deal doesn't become a good deal, or vice versa, based on a second trade made with the value received from the first trade.

Quote:What is the arguement?  The Ravens were happy with the deal and so are the Jaguars.  Does there have to be a winner in the trade?

 

In the end, I think both teams got what they were looking for. 

 

Yes, there needs to be a winner. There's no such thing as a mutually beneficial trade in the NFL. One team always rips another off. There's always a winner.


And spoiler alert; its always the Jags. I don't understand why this is such a complicated concept for some people to grasp.

Quote:You're pedaling backwards.  A bad deal doesn't become a good deal, or vice versa, based on a second trade made with the value received from the first trade.

If you can recoup the value then you can make it a good deal. If you can't recoup the value, then it is not a good deal. There is no pedaling backwards, it's business. It's about results.

Quote:When you get the better end of the deal, as we did, then no mistake was made.

 

That's the plain, simple truth for which you cannot refute.

 

Pirkster has spoken with wisdom and facts.

 

All praise.

Quote:If you can recoup the value then you can make it a good deal. If you can't recoup the value, then it is not a good deal. There is no pedaling backwards, it's business. It's about results.

Suppose on Saturday  I sell you a ticket for the game.  Great seat, row 1 on the 50 yard line, with a parking pass, for $20.   Would you call that a good deal?

Sunday, on your way to the stadium you lose the ticket and can't go to the game.  Does the good deal from the day before now become a bad deal?

We were letting him walk at the end of the season.

 

Instead, we got something instead of nothing.  Our win.

 

They would have been able to sign at the end of the season without having to trade for him.  They paid picks for something they were free to do anyway.  Their loss.

Quote:Suppose on Saturday  I sell you a ticket for the game.  Great seat, row 1 on the 50 yard line, with a parking pass, for $20.   Would you call that a good deal?

Sunday, on your way to the stadium you lose the ticket and can't go to the game.  Does the good deal from the day before now become a bad deal?

What are you talking about? We weren't talking about how to turn a good deal into a bad deal. That is kind of like you trying to make a point but referring to an article a year old.

 

How about you just figure out how to read a date before you post something. Maybe then we can talk about what is a good deal or a bad deal.

Quote:If you can recoup the value see the game with the ticket you bought 
then you can make it a good deal. If you can't recoup the value, loose the ticket and can't see the game 
then it is not a good deal. There is no pedaling backwards, it's business. It's about results.

 

 

Quote:Suppose on Saturday  I sell you a ticket for the game.  Great seat, row 1 on the 50 yard line, with a parking pass, for $20.   Would you call that a good deal?

Sunday, on your way to the stadium you lose the ticket and can't go to the game.  Does the good deal from the day before now become a bad deal?

 

 

Quote:What are you talking about? We weren't talking about how to turn a good deal into a bad deal. 

You can't even understand your own post?   Maybe this will help you figure it out (but I doubt it).

I think I fall somewhere in the middle on this one.

 

Good trade camp: Good trade at the time, Monroe is leaving, Dave got what he could.

 

Bad trade camp: Poor planning in April, Spent a high value pick on Joeckel, caused Monroe to leave, now we have two mid round picks.

 

You are trying to argue two different things simultaneously.  Cutting a loss is not the same thing as root cause analysis.

 

Was it a good trade at the time: I think it was, having a good relationship with a stable organization like Baltimore is also nice.

Was it poor planning in April: I believe it was, The difference between Luke and Eugene did not warrant the use of the number 2 pick.  I think it is safe to say now that we were fed some bull regarding the value of two premier tackles, and they never intended to keep Monroe.

 

The trade itself was fine, but on a roster that looks like Swiss cheese why create a situation that forces one of your solid pieces out?